[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: modules, PLIST and PFRAG.shared
- To: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: modules, PLIST and PFRAG.shared
- From: Jacob Meuser <jakemsr_(_at_)_jakemsr_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:31:46 -0701
- Mail-followup-to: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:09:48AM +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Jolan Luff <jolan_(_at_)_protection_(_dot_)_cx> wrote:
> > > So for ports that set NOT_FOR_ARCHS=NO_SHARED_ARCHS, should .so
> > > files be put into PFRAG.shared, or should update-plist be patched
> > > to not move .so files to PFRAG.shared?
> > Put them in PFRAG.shared regardless of NOT_FOR_ARCHS=NO_SHARED_ARCHS.
> Assuming there *is* a PFRAG.shared. If a port is only for shared
> archs, there is no point in having PFRAG.shared in the first place.
> Actual handling of this in the ports tree is inconsistent; I don't
> think it's a terribly important detail.
Maybe, but it does affect some ports I working on, it will probably
make things a little difficult for, say www/php4/extensions. It
wouldn't be a big deal, to do this once, but, and I may be doing
this wrong, but I'm following the example of xmms to make a
port that has .so files in the subpackages, and update-plist seems to
pull all the .so files out of the multiple PFRAG.shared-foo files and
put them into PFRAG.shared.
$ grep -r SED_PLIST *
$ cat pkg/PIST-foo
$ cat pkg/PFRAG.shared-foo
Is there a better way?